Jump to content

Anybody any good at physics?


Parky
 Share

Recommended Posts

What's going on here?

 

In the 4D Minkowski spacetime. All postulates of the Relativities are elementary and fundamental in the higher dimensional cosmologies.

 

 

However the de Broglie Phasevelocity can easily be used to define the superposition of the scaled distance parameter R(n)=V(n)/F as a rescaling of the lightspeed invariance in Lightpath X=cT=c/F.

 

Proof:

 

Phasespeed VdB=(wavelength)(frequency)=(h/mVgroup)(mc^2/h)=c^2/Vgroup > c for all Vgroup < c.

 

The lightspeed constancy in higher D membrane space so becomes a lower tachyonic limit for the phase speed, just as the lightspeed c is an upper limit for the lower D Minkowski metric (measuring a group-velocity Vgroup as a vector bundle).

 

As said, a 4D technology cannot mechanistically 'overcome' the restriction of the Relativity physics of Albert Einstei

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest lankybellwipe

Upon completion of reading line two of this thread, I decided it best to leave this thread, never to return. If I'd read Korean, I'd be non the wiser.

 

Oh, and in answer to your question.......... Hell no!  :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing Minkowski space-time at the moment but I didn't quite understand your post, it's written in total mumbo-jumbo speak.

 

However, if you are speaking about inertial reference frames (which I guess you are) I am able to help you. Let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing Minkowski space-time at the moment but I didn't quite understand your post, it's written in total mumbo-jumbo speak.

 

However, if you are speaking about inertial reference frames (which I guess you are) I am able to help you. Let me know.

 

I am quoting some boff who is trying (and succeeding) to mangle me heed....

 

Tell me summat about Minkowski space time. In not too complex terms.

 

I guess tachyons are mentioned cause they are the fastest things in the universe (always thought neutrionos were).. :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear to, if you were in the vehicle (and shooting in the same direction the vehicle is moving.. if you were shooting the opposite way, the bullet would just appear to be travelling twice as fast as it normally would).  If you were outside, both vehicle and bullet would be moving fairly rapidly in the same direction at the same pace.  Similarly, if you chuck an apple core out of a car window, it appears to you be moving backwards when in fact for an independent observer it's still travelling forwards at 60mph or something (for a while, anyway).

 

It's aal relative, apparently.  That Einstein gadge, he knew a thing or two about it.

 

I wondered if at the moment the bullet was fired the point it was fired from (ie the gun) would be essentially stationary and therefore the bullet would travel away from that point in the normal way (ie very fast). :dontknow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing Minkowski space-time at the moment but I didn't quite understand your post, it's written in total mumbo-jumbo speak.

 

However, if you are speaking about inertial reference frames (which I guess you are) I am able to help you. Let me know.

 

I am quoting some boff who is trying (and succeeding) to mangle me heed....

 

Tell me summat about Minkowski space time. In not too complex terms.

 

I guess tachyons are mentioned cause they are the fastest things in the universe (always thought neutrionos were).. :blush:

 

Sure, ok I'll start from the start (having to check my notes aswell)

 

Minkowski space-time is a 4 dimensional vector space that combines the three space dimensions and time.

 

This replaces the normal 3 dimensions as it is used to show reality once relativity comes into play.

 

i.e.  Euclidean distance between two objects = (x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 whereas Minkowski has an extra term at the start, that being c^2(t1-t2)^2 where c=speed of light=3x10^8m/s

 

A more interesting part of Minkowski space-time is it's relevance to inertial reference frames (i.e. how things appear from different worldlines). For example

 

A rod lies in O’ at rest along the x’ axis between x’=0 and x’=L.

What is it’s length measured by O ?

 

If this is worked out (don't ask me how, lorentz transformations etc) the the rod is shorter by a factor of  (1-(v^2/c^2))^2

 

Also, say something were to happen 20,000 lightyears away in another galaxy and we were able to see it (a strange assumption, I know). If me and you walked past eachother going in different directions and were, say, 3 metres apart. You could say "gee did you just see what happened on planet zirgonargonargon?" I would most likely respond "yes, I seen it last week".

 

Obviously there are many problems with that example, but you can hopefully see the point.

 

If you are further interested then look up the 'lightcone'. It is a bit more helpful in envisaging minkowski space-time. I'm not sure if everything I said was true but I hope some of it was...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear to, if you were in the vehicle (and shooting in the same direction the vehicle is moving.. if you were shooting the opposite way, the bullet would just appear to be travelling twice as fast as it normally would).  If you were outside, both vehicle and bullet would be moving fairly rapidly in the same direction at the same pace.  Similarly, if you chuck an apple core out of a car window, it appears to you be moving backwards when in fact for an independent observer it's still travelling forwards at 60mph or something (for a while, anyway).

 

It's aal relative, apparently.  That Einstein gadge, he knew a thing or two about it.

 

I wondered if at the moment the bullet was fired the point it was fired from (ie the gun) would be essentially stationary and therefore the bullet would travel away from that point in the normal way (ie very fast). :dontknow:

 

Well, this is it. If you simply dropped the bullet it would be travelling forward at 400 mph (or whatever). Thus, if you fired it backwards at the same speed as the vehicle it ought to land on the ground more-or-less directly under where the gun was when you pressed the trigger. I guess???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Haris Vuckic

Doing Minkowski space-time at the moment but I didn't quite understand your post, it's written in total mumbo-jumbo speak.

 

However, if you are speaking about inertial reference frames (which I guess you are) I am able to help you. Let me know.

 

I am quoting some boff who is trying (and succeeding) to mangle me heed....

 

Tell me summat about Minkowski space time. In not too complex terms.

 

I guess tachyons are mentioned cause they are the fastest things in the universe (always thought neutrionos were).. :blush:

 

Sure, ok I'll start from the start (having to check my notes aswell)

 

Minkowski space-time is a 4 dimensional vector space that combines the three space dimensions and time.

 

This replaces the normal 3 dimensions as it is used to show reality once relativity comes into play.

 

i.e.  Euclidean distance between two objects = (x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 whereas Minkowski has an extra term at the start, that being c^2(t1-t2)^2 where c=speed of light=3x10^8m/s

 

A more interesting part of Minkowski space-time is it's relevance to inertial reference frames (i.e. how things appear from different worldlines). For example

 

A rod lies in O’ at rest along the x’ axis between x’=0 and x’=L.

What is it’s length measured by O ?

 

If this is worked out (don't ask me how, lorentz transformations etc) the the rod is shorter by a factor of   (1-(v^2/c^2))^2

 

Also, say something were to happen 20,000 lightyears away in another galaxy and we were able to see it (a strange assumption, I know). If me and you walked past eachother going in different directions and were, say, 3 metres apart. You could say "gee did you just see what happened on planet zirgonargonargon?" I would most likely respond "yes, I seen it last week".

 

Obviously there are many problems with that example, but you can hopefully see the point.

 

If you are further interested then look up the 'lightcone'. It is a bit more helpful in envisaging minkowski space-time. I'm not sure if everything I said was true but I hope some of it was...

 

 

Aye me and my mate were having this discussion in Rosies bar. He still had a few minor problems with it but I reckon it's spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear to, if you were in the vehicle (and shooting in the same direction the vehicle is moving.. if you were shooting the opposite way, the bullet would just appear to be travelling twice as fast as it normally would).  If you were outside, both vehicle and bullet would be moving fairly rapidly in the same direction at the same pace.  Similarly, if you chuck an apple core out of a car window, it appears to you be moving backwards when in fact for an independent observer it's still travelling forwards at 60mph or something (for a while, anyway).

 

It's aal relative, apparently.  That Einstein gadge, he knew a thing or two about it.

 

I wondered if at the moment the bullet was fired the point it was fired from (ie the gun) would be essentially stationary and therefore the bullet would travel away from that point in the normal way (ie very fast). :dontknow:

 

Well, this is it. If you simply dropped the bullet it would be travelling forward at 400 mph (or whatever). Thus, if you fired it backwards at the same speed as the vehicle it ought to land on the ground more-or-less directly under where the gun was when you pressed the trigger. I guess???

 

Exactly, think of it in relative terms.

 

Gun and car are travelling at 300mph therefore gun and car are relatively (to eachother) stationary. 300=300 or 0=0 if that helps. So shooting would add that extra 300mph to the speed of the bullet if going forward.

 

You're right, bullet fired at 300mph backwards from a car travelling 300mph will appear to drop to the ground to a bystander. Relative to the CAR however it will appear to go backwards at 300mph, which is the original speed the bullet is fired from the gun...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing Minkowski space-time at the moment but I didn't quite understand your post, it's written in total mumbo-jumbo speak.

 

However, if you are speaking about inertial reference frames (which I guess you are) I am able to help you. Let me know.

 

I am quoting some boff who is trying (and succeeding) to mangle me heed....

 

Tell me summat about Minkowski space time. In not too complex terms.

 

I guess tachyons are mentioned cause they are the fastest things in the universe (always thought neutrionos were).. :blush:

 

Sure, ok I'll start from the start (having to check my notes aswell)

 

Minkowski space-time is a 4 dimensional vector space that combines the three space dimensions and time.

 

This replaces the normal 3 dimensions as it is used to show reality once relativity comes into play.

 

i.e.  Euclidean distance between two objects = (x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 whereas Minkowski has an extra term at the start, that being c^2(t1-t2)^2 where c=speed of light=3x10^8m/s

 

A more interesting part of Minkowski space-time is it's relevance to inertial reference frames (i.e. how things appear from different worldlines). For example

 

A rod lies in O’ at rest along the x’ axis between x’=0 and x’=L.

What is it’s length measured by O ?

 

If this is worked out (don't ask me how, lorentz transformations etc) the the rod is shorter by a factor of   (1-(v^2/c^2))^2

 

Also, say something were to happen 20,000 lightyears away in another galaxy and we were able to see it (a strange assumption, I know). If me and you walked past eachother going in different directions and were, say, 3 metres apart. You could say "gee did you just see what happened on planet zirgonargonargon?" I would most likely respond "yes, I seen it last week".

 

Obviously there are many problems with that example, but you can hopefully see the point.

 

If you are further interested then look up the 'lightcone'. It is a bit more helpful in envisaging minkowski space-time. I'm not sure if everything I said was true but I hope some of it was...

 

 

Nice.

 

Thanks very much for that response.

 

What if we keep adding dimensions?

 

Is it possible to have faster than light travel just by slipping into a adjacent dimension (with different laws/fabric/spacetime) and then nip back into ours as needed?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Parky

 

In my opinion time travel is impossible.

 

Relativistic Mass = 'Rest mass'  /  [ ( 1  -   (speed^2/speed of light^2) )^-1/2 ]

 

Problem 1. When the speed of this object approaches the speed of light the '1 - (speed^2/speed of light^2)' part approaches zero (as 1 - 3,000,000/3,000,000 = 1-1 = 0) and anything divided by zero is infinite or undefined. This would mean the Relativistic Mass is infinite which is impossible/terrifying.

 

Problem 2. If it surpassed this with an infinite mass (somehow) then it's the square root of a negative (the ^-1/2 part) which can only be done using complex numbers. This would most probably (haven't tried it) give an negative mass...

 

This is assuming that einstein was correct of course.

 

EDIT: And to answer the dimensions question, am nae sure. Apparently there's about 12 dimensions now though  :dontknow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Parky

 

In my opinion time travel is impossible.

 

Relativistic Mass = 'Rest mass'  /  [ ( 1  -   (speed^2/speed of light^2) )^-1/2 ]

 

Problem 1. When the speed of this object approaches the speed of light the '1 - (speed^2/speed of light^2)' part approaches zero (as 1 - 3,000,000/3,000,000 = 1-1 = 0) and anything divided by zero is infinite or undefined. This would mean the Relativistic Mass is infinite which is impossible/terrifying.

 

Problem 2. If it surpassed this with an infinite mass (somehow) then it's the square root of a negative (the ^-1/2 part) which can only be done using complex numbers. This would most probably (haven't tried it) give an negative mass...

 

This is assuming that einstein was correct of course.

 

EDIT: And to answer the dimensions question, am nae sure. Apparently there's about 12 dimensions now though  :dontknow:

 

I don't like mass (after all it's only a set of vibrating atoms which are 99.9% empty)...Think on that.

 

I also don't like this idea that as we near the sol that time passing for us and the observer is interconnected...How the fuck can that be right? So we go to the nearest star at or near the sol and when we get back decades have passed on earth and only a few months for us...That can't be right...

 

"Out there" time doesn't exist anyway only radiation and events...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...